From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 10 18:42:45 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C76637B401 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:42:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.116]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4679843FAF for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:42:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ericr@sourmilk.net) Received: from nutmeg (87.mercerville-33-34rs.nj.dial-access.att.net[12.94.173.87]) by mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12) with SMTP id <20030611014241112007ar6ue>; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:42:42 +0000 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:42:34 -0400 From: Eric Rivas To: "Daniel M. Kurry" Message-Id: <20030610214234.1a47d8ed.ericr@sourmilk.net> In-Reply-To: <20030610052338.GB14895@over-yonder.net> References: <000901c32eeb$4b15d4a0$0200000a@fireball> <200306101412.18212.jrhoden@unimelb.edu.au> <20030610005022.289b01b9.ericr@sourmilk.net> <20030610052338.GB14895@over-yonder.net> Organization: Sourmilk Products, Inc. X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.2 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Version Release numbers X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:42:45 -0000 On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 00:23:38 -0500 "Daniel M. Kurry" wrote: > Eric Rivas said something like: > > Does anyone else think it's a good idea that 5.1 should have been > > called 5.0.1, then once 5.x goes stable, start with 5.1? That way > > we keep consistent in that every x.0 version is considered > > development/test release. > > Don't we have -CURRENT precisely for channeling development? It's not really massive development per se, I mean there isn't any overly drastic changes. Anyway, it was just a thought, and I know we got rid of the second . in version numbers for a reason. I also understand why the current version scheme is the way it is, like I said, it's just a thought and I would be very amazed if anyone thought my idea was a good one. > > dan > > > -- > > Eric Rivas > > -- Eric Rivas